canon rumors FORUM

willrobb

Exciting prospect. I'm really happy with my 17-40mm F4L, it's been a well used lens for ke over the last few years but sometimes Ihad wished I had the f2.8 of my 24-70L. A 2.8 at it's widest could be very useful, hopefully a fair bit cheaper than the 16-35mm as well.

I'd really prefer a 16-35 f/4 (like the new Nikkor) for landscape work, although I accept that there are a lot of people that would like a 14-24 f/2.8. Perhaps this is Canon's attempt at a compromise to save having to develop two lenses. I think that would be a mistake, as the two new wide angle full frame zooms that Nikon has serve two different market, just like the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 24-105 f/4 and the two 70-200s.

There is a 16-35 f/2.8, and I have it. It works great for landscapes.

I don't understand who they are targeting with this new 17-40? I could see a 17-50 f/2.8-4 being interesting I guess. And I could see a 17-40 f/2.8 doing well. I don't understand why I would want this 17-40 f/2.8-4 over my 16-35 unless the price was a lot less.

The price most likely will double or hit somewhere around the 1400-1600 range just like the 24-70mm; if nothing is really astonishing about it comparing to the previous one...

Any idea how long will it take since patent release?

Not all patent get released..Sometimes they patent it because they are testing it..doesn't mean they will ever release it..Like hat many have mentioned…why the need for this lens when if you're going to pay so much more for it (i'm sure of that), just go get the 16-35 then..It could just be one of Canon's "test" lenses that got patented and they're still deciding if they want to release it..i don't know…we might never see the light of it

If this puppy comes out it will be hard for me not to sell my perfect 17-40 f/4L for this

The 17-40mm is far from perfect. I suggest learning to read an MFT chart as the first step, and then having a good look at the corners of your shots at f/4.

why be condescending? The 17-40L is capable of taking stunning photo's, what else is necessary?

+1MTF charts aren't everything. If you're happy with the photos that it produces, then it is perfect your tastes.

+1

now about the lens:if a constant 2.8 would allow me to obtain good IQ at f/4, would be a deal, but not with variable aperture - and like others I would rather see a 14-24 2.8.

Maybe not so much of a need during daytime; for low light conditions and nighscapes, I can see the use.I have the 17-40, and can't even recall using it at 40mm focal, but often I get down to f/4 and find myself still pushing the iso

All I know is the current 17-40 distorts pretty bad until about 19mm. My copy does at least. I would prefer wider, maybe 15-30mm, if that's even feasible, and has 77mm filter threads.

They're gonna milk the 16-35/2.8 until sales drop A LOT. At its current price, the only reason to buy is for a tiny bit wider angle and 2.8 aperture (over the 17-40). I hope they will make a stellar UWA...and of course given their newer lens prices don't expect one for under $1,800.0

The 17-40 is supposed to be better on the wide end than the long end... while I would love an update i do have a few concerns...

A) this lens sharply increasing in price, 16-35 II, 70-200 2.8 II, 5dIII, etc... B) like many newer updates, the lens becoming an 82mm rather than 77mm...C) not really jiving over the variable aperture aspect of this lens... I would love a 2.8 option, but 2.8 on the wide end really isn't as much as a benefit as it is on the long end... But i dont know if it's even possible to have F4 on the 17 end and 2.8 for the 40 end... Kinda seems simpler to have a constant aperture, unless that will increase costs even more.

If this puppy comes out it will be hard for me not to sell my perfect 17-40 f/4L for this

The 17-40mm is far from perfect. I suggest learning to read an MFT chart as the first step, and then having a good look at the corners of your shots at f/4.

why be condescending? The 17-40L is capable of taking stunning photo's, what else is necessary?

I had 2 17-40's one new and one recently used from ebay. I sold the new one unimpressed... then after a year decided due to filter sizes (77mm), it will go well with my other lenses, so I got one from ebay...

I could not be happier. It is small, sharp, wide... and a great value for the money. It can take some amazing shots...

I think the 17-40 is a good bang per buck lens, but it's getting old and the optical quality seems to be hit or miss with lots of copy variation. I'm waiting for the MK II, and if it's still constant f4 that's just fine with me. I almost never set my f4-5.6 lenses wider than 5.6 anyway because I just hate having the aperture change as I zoom. And besides, the long end is where you need wider aperture.